[1] MOTION TO RECONSIDER BOND

Comes the Defendant, Charles Hayes, by and through
counsel, and moves this Honorable Court for reconsideration of
that part of its Order of November 26, 1996 wherein it Denied
Defendent’s pro se motion to correct the Finding of Facts by
this Court’s Magistrate in his Memorandum Opinion and Order
dated October 28th, 1996 wherein he found, based on such
Finding, that Defendant ought to be detained without bond
pending trial.

The grounds for this motion are that the original Court
was grievously misled by the alleged proof presented at the
Detention Hearing on behalf of the government, much of which
is impeachable by the most cursory of independent
investigation. The government's careless use of hearsay and
lack of research to substantiate that which it offered as
proof to detain the Defendant prior to trial acts as an
assault on Defendant's rights to Due Process and are most
readily curable by this Court's immediate amendment of the
Findings of Fact in the above-described Memorandum and which
should should result in the setting of a Bond which Defendant has a
fair chance of making or, in the alternative, for a new Bond
Hearing wherein Defendant has a legitimate opportunity to
address those spurious allegations which caught him by
surprise at the original hearing.

This motion to Reconsider is timely filed and is the
appropriate remedy for this Court to insure justice and
the protection of the Defendant's Constitutional rights. This
Motion would have been filed earlier but it has been delayed
by circumstances and actions not of Defendant's doing and an
explanation of which is contained hereafter.

Defendant was arrested on October 22, 1996 on a charge
that he had caused another person to travel interstate and
that he had used the mail and telephones all to arrange for
the murder of his son. The original Bond Hearing for Defendant
was held on October 25th, 1996 in front of United States
Magistrate Judge J.B. Johnson and it is the Findings of Fact
in his following Order dated October 28th, 1996 that Defendant
sought to correct by his Motion to this Court heard (actually
not heard but disposed of summarily by this Court) on November
26th, 1996.

In essence, the vast majority of alleged proof presented
by the government at the Detention Hearing of Defendant was
unsubstantiated, even though it could have easily been checked
out for its truthfulness if the government had so desired and
it is this disdain and disregard for possible exculpatory
evidence that so taints the testimony of the lead prosecution
witness at the Detention Hearing, Special Agent David Keller.

The government presented three (3) witnesses at the
Detention Hearing for the purpose of trying to convince the
Court that the Defendant presented a threat to flee or, in the
alternative, represented a threat to the safety of another
person or the community. These witnesses were FBI Special
Agent David Keller, Defendant's ex-wife Guiamor Zink and Ms.
Bridgette Cowan, a friend of Defendant's now-deceased mother.

The Court summarily and rightfully discounts the
testimony of the latter two witnesses as having a "lesser
degree of credibility" and continues that "Even if the . . .
[Court] . . . only considers the testimony and evidence of
Special Agent Keller, I find that by clear and convincing
evidence that there is a serious risk that the Defendant will
endanger the safety of another person or the community if not
detained pending trial."

The Court therefore acknowledges that the testimony of Defendant's
ex-wife and his mother's friend lacks the authenticity and credibility
to serve as evidence meriting
Defendant's detention. That being the case, then only the
evidence proffered by FBI Special Agent Keller need be
examined to determine whether the Court was mislead to
concluding that Defendant should be detained pending trial.

Much of Agent Keller's testimony was obviously
information he had gleaned from prior conversations with the
other two witnesses that followed him to the stand. Mr.
Keller's testimony is that "In just a short period of time,
without really doing an extensive investigation, we have
determined that--that--that there have (sic) been some
confirmation of some neighbors that live in the vacinity . . .
where Charles Hayes . . . has confronted tourists in the past,
over the past several years utilizing a firearm device in
connection with altercations that he has had with people . . ."
(Exhibit One, Transcript of Hearing, page 15, line 12) Later we
find that the less-than-extensive investigation
conducted by this Agent and on which he based his testimony
which resulted in the detention of Defendant consisted of
talking with two witnesses whose testimony was later
discounted by this very Court. The Defendant's obvious point
here is that prejudiced and untrustworthy testimony from
untrustworthy sources does not and should not be sanitized or
rehabilitated simply because it is parroted by a government
agent, and that same government agent has a duty to look
beyond obviously self-serving sources of information to secure
viable evidence as to whether a Defendant should be detained
pending a trial of the case.

Here, if the testimony of Special Agent Keller at the
Detention Hearing is redacted to reflect only that evidence
gleaned from his sources aside from the two witnesses already
discounted by the Court, then there is a distinct lacuna of
viable evidence, or even hearsay, aside from the charge
itself, which lends itself to believing that the threat of
Defendant fleeing, or bringing harm to another person or the
community outweighs his presumption of innocence or right to
remain free pending trial.

The evidence offered by Agent Keller as a result of his
"investigation", outside of that offered by Zink and Cowan,
included a copy of a magazine entitled MEDIA BY-PASS,
September 1996 edition, that features a cover photo of Mr.
Hayes with a headline identifying him as the Angel of Death.
While this qualifies as modern-day graphic theater designed to
draw a reader's attention to the magazine, a quick reading of
the story dispels any fear that Defendant represents a physical
threat to any person, and that the moniker, Angel of Death, attaches
to Mr. Hayes because of his political talent for ending the political
careers of those politicians whom he and his associates consider
corrupt. To find a person to be [a] threat to flee or to harm
another person because of the nature of what amounts to their
modern-day CB moniker is insufficient in the protection of his
Constitutional rights.

The only other independent evidence uncovered by Agent
Keller, "without doing an extensive investigation",
is that be believes that Charles Hayes "has a page on the
internet." (Exhibit Two, Ibid, p 19, line 9). He further
states that an article taken from the suspected web page of
the Defendant bears the by-line of a person name J. Orlon
Grabbe and "I don't know exactly who J. Orlon Grabbe is, ...,
but I suspect and have reason to believe that it's--very well
could be Charles Hayes sitting in this courtroom." (Exhibit
Three, Ibid, p 20, line 12)

Agent Keller then proceeds to read to the Court the
above-described article and it is a real barn-burner, calling
for possible gun-play and violence. The Court can't help but
to have had its outlook towards the Defendant colored by the act
of listening to the language of the article but the bare
fact is that Defendant is not the author of said article and
even the most cursory of investigations by Agent Keller would
have revealed that and then he would not have had the
opportunity to read such irrelevant and spurious material into
the record while trying to influence the Court into detaining
Defendant prior to trial. The fact is that Mr. Grabbe is a
well-known and published author known to millions of readers
and he could have been reached with a single phone call by
Agent Keller but same was not forthcoming even though a
citizen's freedom might have hung on its result. (It still
may).

This misfeasance on the part of Special Agent Keller,
offering evidence he knows is suspect and avoiding the
effort to find out if it is true or not, taints all of the
testimony on which this Court based its Findings of Fact and
on which it thereafter detained the Defendant. Therefore, this
Court should reconsider and correct its Findings of Fact in its
Memorandum Opinion and Order dated October 28, 1996 and allow
Defendant release on bond pending his trial, or, at the very
least, reconvene Defendant's Detention Hearing to consider new
testimony in protection of Defendant's Constitutional rights.

NOTICE

Please take notice that the foregoing Motion will come on for hearing
at the Court's earliest convenience.

CERTIFICATION

This is to certify that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing Motion
was served this 18th day of December, 1996 by mailing same to the United
States District Court, Eastern District, P.O. Box 5121, London, Kentucky
40745-5121 and to United States Assistant District Attorneys Martin
Hatfield and Patrick Molloy, 1380 West Fifth Street, London, Kentucky
40741.

GATEWOOD GALBRAITH

Exhibit 1

...which he was threatened by the defendant?

A. Yes, sir. On the day that he, John Anthony Hayes,
was in Pulaski County, Kentucky, and when they filed--I
think it was when probate was intially filed, I think it was
in the beginning stages of probate on the estate, mr. Hayes
threatened John Anthony Hayes to do bodily harm to him. And
it was--I believe that took place at the premises there at
Nancy, Kentucky, at the Beckett Motel area.

Q. Also, during this investigation, have you become
aware of any instances where the defendant has either used
or threatened the use of fire arms?

A. Yes, sir, I have. In just a short period of time,
without doing an extensive investigation, we have
determined that--that--that there have been some
confirmation of some neighbors that live in the vicinity of
the Beckett Motel where Charles Hayes resides, where Charles
Hayes in the past several years utilizing a firearm device in
connection with altercations that he has had with people
parking in the vicinity.

MR. SCOVILLE: I want to--Judge, I know that
this is a detention hearing and some hearsay is allowed, but
this is--I mean, that someone said that someone said that
some tourists at some time were accosted. I would like to
test the veracity of that. ...

PERKINS & PERKINS COURT REPORTERS
1-800-550-3797

Exhibit 2

. . . powerful--powerful man and was afraid of him.

Q. I want to go back to the magazine for just a moment
and your--or the characterization on the cover of the
magazine as the angel of death.

Have you become aware during this investigation of any
information on the internet concerning Mr. Hayes, the
defendant?

A. Yes, Sir. I understand that according to the--he
has a page--has a page on the internet.

Q. And as a result of that, did someone on your behalf,
at your request, obtain some documents from the--from that
internet page?

A. Yes, sir.

(A document was handed to counsel.)

MR. SCOVILLE: Can I look at this for just a
moment, please?

THE COURT: Sure.

(A pause was had in the proceedings)

MR. SCOVILLE: Thank you.

(A document was handed to the witness.)

MR. HATFIELD: Your Honor, may I have what has
been marked as government exhibit 2 shown to
Special Agent Keller?

THE COURT: All right, sir.

BY MR. SCOVILLE:

PERKINS & PERKINS COURT REPORTERS
1-800-550-3797

Exhibit 3

Q. Do you recognize what has been marked as government
exhibit number 2, Agent Keller?

A. Yes, sir, I do.

Q. And what is that?

A. It's a copy of a document that was taken off of the
internet just within the last two days by an FBI agent.

Q. And does --

A. At my direction I asked him to query up whatever he could
query up on Hayes, the angel of death, and also this
J. Orlan Grabbie.

Q. Do you know who J. Orlan Grabbie is?

A. No, Sir, I don't know exactly who J. Orlan Grabbie
is, the author of the article that I have in front of me,
but I suspect and have reason to believe that it's--very
well could be Charles Hayes sitting in this courtroom.

Q. And does--

A. The pen name of an author or pen name or another alias
utalized by him to access the internet.

Q. Does that article refer to Mr. Hayes as the angel of
death?

A. Yes, sir, it does.

Q. And does that article talk about anything to do with
an area called Nancy, Kentucky?

A. Yes, sir, it does.

Q. And are you familiar with Nancy, Kentucky?

PERKINS & PERKINS COURT REPORTERS
1-800-550-3797

[2] ADDENDUM TO MOTION TO RECONSIDER BOND

Comes the Defendant, Charles Hayes, by and through
counsel, and submits this Addendum to his previous Motion to
this Honorable Court for Reconsideration of this Defendant's
Bond situation.

This Addendum is necessary because, after rereading the
transcript of the bond hearing, and after speaking with
Defendant at length and after several weeks of experience with
trying to protect this Defendant's right to a fair trial with
an appropriate defense and all in the face of his
incarceration in a detention facility 80 miles from his
attorney, this counsel is more than ever convinced that the
continued detention of Mr. Hayes, without bond, pending trial,
puts Defendant at an Unconstitutional disadvantage, deprives
him of his right to fully participate in the construction of
his appropriate defense and all because of the ingenious
assassination of Defendant's character carried off at the
original Detention hearing.

In Defendant's original Motion to Reconsider, it was
pointed out that United States Magistrate Judge J.B. Johnson
held that Defendant was to be held without bond pending trial
based solely on the testimony of Special Agent David Keller
and without even considering the testimony of the two other
witnesses that testified for the government at the hearing. We
also pointed out that all of the testimony given by Special
Agent Keller, that was gleaned from his conversations only
with these two other self-interested witnesses, was just as
infirm as a basis for depriving Defendant of his freedom pending
trial as if it had come from their own mouths.

Defendant then observed that Special Agent Keller
submitted only two other items of proof to the Court in his
attempt to prove that Defendant would endanger the safety of
another person or the community or that he might flee the
Court's jurisdiction. These included an article about
Defendant in a magazine and an article off the internet by a
Mr. J. Orlin Grabbe. These couldn't possibly be the basis for
detaining Defendant as the magazine discusses only Defendant's
political propensities and his political nickname "Angel of
Death," which was fully explained in the article. The internet
piece, while containing some volatile material, was written by
another person, which was easily ascertainable, and yet
Special Agent Keller, under oath, said, about the author of
the article, "I suspect and have reason to believe that it's--
very well could be Charles Hayes sitting in this courtroom."
(Transcript, Detention Hearing, page 20, line 14)

It is precisely this method by Agent Keller of phrasing nonsense
and nontruths in a personally sincere manner and
putting his reputation as an investigator as added weight to
induce acceptance of same that so taints the record throughout
and renders his testimony at said Hearing to an obvious
insufficient basis on which to detain Mr. Hayes without bond.

Agent Keller had no reason to believe that Defendant was
the author of that article! Such a statement is manifest
evidence of bad faith on the part of this government witness
who is the key to Defendant's current detention.

Further evidence of this Agent's bad faith and unreliability is
his outright deception to the Court in later testimony at the
Detention Hearing. Regarding Defendant's relationship with the
United States Customs Agency, Agent Keller begins his testimony
to the Court with the assurance that his testimony regarding same
will be dependable because "I have been in--I have been in touch
with the U.S. Customs as early as yesterday." (Ibid, page 28,
line 22)

What then follows can only be characterized as bizarre and manifest
evidence of Agent Keller's unreliability as a
witness whose testimony may be relied upon to deprive a citizen
of their basic right to freedom. For three full pages
this Agent gives testimony in such a way that it sounds like
he is answering from the personal knowledge gained from having
"been in touch with the U.S. Customs. . ." (Ibid)

Then, a bombshell! Special Agent Keller admits under
cross-examination that he has never called Customs and that
the information he has about Defendant's relationship with
Customs is from Assistant United States District Attorney Bob
Rawlins. He had, in fact, practiced a further subterfuge on
the Court, and to Defendant's further ruination he continues
the tact of trying to cover his lack of knowledge regarding
these matters for the following 8 pages. Reading the cross-
examination of Agent Keller in total, his credibility as a
reliable source of information, on which to base a decision as
to whether the Defendant qualifies for a bond, is totally
nonexistent. He pretends to the Court to have sources to
substantiate his testimony, but upon cross-examination, it is
clear that he may be biased, but he is also woefully
uninformed.

Uninformed, misinformed, or, again, ingenious, Agent
Keller misspeaks when he states that he first became aware of
the Defendant when "he came to our office and talked to a
Special Agent Kinkaid about this same Customs inquiry." (Ibid,
page 33, line 8) This event never occurred!

Further, in what is perhaps the most lucid and dependable
testimony enticed from Special Agent Keller throughout the
entire Hearing, he is asked whether Mr. Hayes "is a risk to
the community" or whether he "threatens anybody or anything at
all in any of the articles you have introduced?" (Ibid, page 41,
line 3). Agent Keller replies, "Other than what it had on
the internet . . . No sir . . ." (Ibid, lines 6 & 8)

Finally, "Is there anything in those articles in that magazine
that says he is a risk of flight?" "No, sir," is the
reply. And it is the information in those very articles
themselves that the Court refers to in explaining the basis
for its Findings of Fact which resulted in the detention of
Defendant. (Memorandum Opinion and Order, page 4)

Therefore, if the only reliable evidence gleaned by Agent
Keller's investigation of Mr. Hayes' propensity to flee or to
represent a risk to another person to the community comes from
a magazine article which Defendant has previously characterized
as very credible, and that same Agent admits under oath that
the article contains no evidence that Defendant will flee or offer
risk to another, then "Where's the Beef?"

The nature of the charge itself, while serious, cannot be
sufficient to deny Defendant to a fair and reasonable bond,
so the government has failed to meet its burden of proving that
the Defendant should be detained pending trial.

WHEREFORE, the Defendant prays this Honorable reconsider its Order
detaining Defendant without bond pending trial and
either give him a fair and reasonable bond or schedule another
Bond Hearing to make the government give some credible
evidence to substantiate his detention, all to correct his
current unconstitutional situation which, because he remains
incarcerated, is further depriving him of his opportunity and
right to participate in the construction of his natural and
true defenses to the charge against him.

[3] MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS

Comes the Defendant, by and through counsel, and moves this Honorable
Court for an Order directing the United States to immediately answer
the following Bill of Particulars.

As grounds for this Motion, counself states that said information is
necessary for Defendant to prepare his defense to the charge against him
and the withholding of said information would Unconstitutionally deny
him the right to a fair trial.

1. How did the FBI or any other government agency first hear of the
information which is the basis of the charge against Defendant herein?

2. How did the government agent from Alabama get involved? Who made
the decision to call Defendant from there?

3. Does the United States have any witness who has heard Defendant
threaten his son or discuss having his son murdered? If so, who is
this witness and what does he/she say prompted him/her to contact the
FBI or other government agency?